Navigating tax implications of holding vacant land

Navigating tax implications of holding vacant land


The Meakins case examines the deductibility of holding costs for vacant land. The findings emphasise the importance of demonstrable, income-generating activities to support tax deduction claims on vacant land, offering crucial insights for property investors and taxpayers.

The recent Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) case Meakins and Commissioner of Taxation [2023] AATA 3852 (Meakins), highlights its significance in the context of tax deductions for holding vacant land in Australia. The key tribunal findings emphasise the importance of several critical factors including assessment of income-generating intent, the lack of substantial activity and implications of inaction. The ruling reinforces that expenses related to vacant land are not typically deductible unless the land is used for income-generating purposes. 


The taxpayer purchased vacant land at North Fremantle in 2006. Initially, there was a clear intent to develop this land, transforming it into an income-generating asset.

Despite these initial plans, the development of the property did not proceed but the taxpayer continued to claim deductions for holding costs. The taxpayer attributed this inaction to changing economic circumstances that affected the ability to move forward with the development. As the years passed, these circumstances, combined with other unforeseen challenges, led to the property remaining largely undeveloped and unused.

This lack of tangible development activity raised significant questions from the tax authorities about the legitimacy of the tax deductions claimed for holding the property. The AAT agreed with the Commissioner that the interest expenses were not deductible.

Key issues and tribunal findings

The tribunal’s decision hinged on several critical factors:

  • Assessment of income-generating intent: A pivotal aspect of the tribunal’s decision was assessing the taxpayer’s intent for income generation. The tribunal scrutinised the nature of expenses incurred, investigating whether they were legitimately aimed at producing assessable income or were merely veiled as part of a business operation. This scrutiny was crucial, as tax law requires a direct link between the expense and the income-producing activity. This case highlights that taxpayers must demonstrate a clear and direct connection between the expenditure on vacant land and their efforts to generate assessable income, such as active steps towards development or concrete plans for business use.
  • Lack of substantial activity: The tribunal expressed significant concerns over the absence of meaningful development or use of the property for income generation over 17 years. This prolonged period of inactivity was a key factor in casting doubt on the legitimacy of the claimed deductions. The case underscores the importance of active engagement and development efforts in property investment to substantiate claims for tax deductions. The tribunal’s focus was not just on the intent to generate income but also on the tangible actions taken towards this objective. This serves as a reminder that mere ownership of property, without substantial and active efforts towards its income-producing use, is insufficient to justify tax deductions for holding expenses.
  • Implications of inaction: The extended period of inaction raised significant questions about the trust’s true intent behind holding the land. The tribunal examined the absence of concrete actions towards developing or using the property for income generation, contrasting this with the claim for deductions. This inaction was seen as indicative of a lack of serious commitment to using the property for income-producing purposes.

This highlights that in the realm of tax law, intentions must be backed by actions. Taxpayers must be mindful that inactivity or lack of substantial effort in developing or using their property can undermine their claims for tax deductions and invite scrutiny from tax authorities.

Implications for taxpayers

The Meakins case echoes the sentiments expressed in ATO Ruling TR 2023/3, particularly regarding the deductibility of expenses for vacant land. The ruling emphasises that expenses related to vacant land are not typically deductible unless the land is used for income-generating purposes. 

Whilst the case addresses an interest deduction claimed before the introduction of Section 26-102, the decision serves as a crucial reminder for taxpayers holding vacant land (where deductions can still be obtained) for the need of a clear demonstration of income-generating intent and activity when claiming deductions on vacant land. Taxpayers must ensure that their investment strategies align with tax laws to avoid disputes and penalties.

Actions required

  • Review current holdings:
    • Assessment of vacant land holdings: Conduct a thorough review of your current vacant land holdings. Assess each property, taking into consideration the Meakins case and the ATO Ruling TR 2023/3, to understand how these legal precedents impact your ability to claim deductions.
    • Analysis of development plans: For each holding, evaluate the status of any development plans or activities. This includes reviewing timelines, actions taken, and any delays or changes in plans.
  • Documentation: Having detailed and organised records that clearly demonstrate the purpose and use of the land is always useful.

Keeping abreast of these rules and seeking professional advice can save both time and money, helping to avoid potential pitfalls down the line. 

Get in touch with SW

Our expert team here at SW is here to guide you every step of the way. Please reach out if you need support or have any questions.


Rahul Sanghani

Return to Insights